Pro-life advocates have warned for years that widespread acceptance of abortion will open the door to greatersocietal acceptance of infanticide, beginning with the euthanizing of disabled newborns. Infanticide proponent Peter Singer, a top ethicist at Princeton University, has said, for example, “there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.”

Though he once was considered to be on the radical fringe, Singer’s views are becoming more mainstream. For example, the world’s most prestigious bioethics journal, The Hastings Center Report, published in 2008 an enthusiastic defense of the Netherlands’ practice of euthanizing newborns.

However, it is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse to assume that acceptance of abortion is the driving factor in the culture of death Canada and the United States have both developed over the years. Canada’s acceptance of late-term abortions is a symptom of a much deeper problem, one that also leads to a criminal justice system that gives women who murder newborns slaps on the wrist.

Leftism sanctions and encourages criminality by changing societal views of criminals and victims. We see this clearly when Veit speaks of the onerousness of childbirth, as if the child is a parasite erupting from the womb of some innocent victim in a scene slightly less gory than the chest bursting dinner scene in Alien. Meanwhile, Veit presumes to speak for all Canadians when she claims they grieve for Effert, the woman who strangled a baby and then tried to frame an innocent man for the murder.

125 Comments, 44 Threads

“She strangled her newborn baby, threw the body into her neighbor’s yard, and then tried to frame her boyfriend for the murder. She did all this because, at 19, she was hiding her pregnancy from her mother.”

At the very least, Katrina Effert should have been given life in prison for killing a baby. But no, everybody here in North America and Europe is a victim. Everybody, except the baby that was killed. Nobody seems to stand for that poor boy. Nobody seems to speak for that poor boy. And nobody seems to care about that poor boy. There is nothing lower on this planet than somebody killing an infant, let alone any child. Effert should have been thrown into solitary to reflect on the life she literally threw away over a fence. Disgusting.

No surprise here. Under liberal stewardship, poor Canada degenerated into nothing. People don’t even see anything wrong with it. And the nerve of the judge, speaking on behave of ALL Canada. What can you say to that?

But you Canadians will put up with it. You’ll shrug, and mutter, and do nothing. Better a million children should die like that than that anyone should make a scene, get rebellious, or be anything less than “nice.” Spare me, and call me back when there are crowds in the Canadian streets ready to take something resembling a stand on matters like this. There won’t be. Complaisant weasels.

Le Cracquere
But you Canadians will put up with it. You’ll shrug, and mutter, and do nothing. Better a million children should die like that than that anyone should make a scene, get rebellious, or be anything less than “nice.” Spare me, and call me back when there are crowds in the Canadian streets ready to take something resembling a stand on matters like this. There won’t be. Complaisant weasels.

Le Cracquere is exactly right. I’m an American living in Ontario, and I have never met such complacent people. They avoid substantive conversations about critical issues at all costs. Most of the time they are unaware of the critical issues. They go through their lives in what they consider to be their “socialist paradise,” never giving any thought to what is logical, right, or good. This is what happens to people who are squashed by over 40 years of socialism. They lose all common sense, reason, and logic. The State knows what is right for them, and they don’t even realize that they have lost their liberty and individualism. It’s very sad to see a society like this.

You sound as demented as those people who blame Americans for anything and everything

Just because people get a vote or live in a place it doesn’t mean they actually have a say at all… take a good look around and you’ll find that the people who actually define politics are small, fanatical groups who over years lobby in the right places and get jobs in the establishment and then start to be sabotaging activists that can not be removed from their unelected power position.

So far our system of government has almost no defense against such predatory groups, be it the US, Canada or Europe.

A bit like Honeybees that cannot manage to kill the Varroa mites that kill them… despite having all the tools to do so and despite the mites being frisbee sized bloodsucker on their bodies.

We need a new strategy to deal with these parasites that infest our democracy.

Justice Veit must be publicly and aggressively censored, and immediately removed from office via legal process. It could not possibly be more clear that she is absolutely mentally unfit to be a judge.

Spending any time naval gazing about what has become of Canada, or the West, is a waste of time that distracts from looking for people like Justice Veit, and quickly removing them from any position of power.

Based on this article, it seems that the girl should also be charged with the crime of framing her boyfriend for murder.

Seriously.. So the taxpayer should be on the hook for this girl for the rest of her life because she decided she didn’t want a kid… wtf… While the whole situation is jacked, if she’s REALLY such a terrible person that she should be locked up for life, then she should just be destroyed. Do unto her as she did to others. Strangle her ass with her panties and toss her into the trash.

That judge is the product of decades of liberal social engineering. If the US wants to avoid this type of scabby political activist justice system, get rid of the liberals next election and never give them power again.. JMO

•Deuteronomy 12:31: You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
•Deuteronomy 18:9-12: When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire…Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.

There are a few more from Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. But, I gave two from your Canon.

According to the Bible, idolatry and social injustice were the reasons for the first Babylonian exile of the Jews 2,500 years ago. Rabbis in the Talmud disagreed as to whether the references to child sacrifice were figurative (dedication of children to Moloch by walking them between two fires) or literal (actual burning).

However, the Phoenicians who lived to the north in what is now Lebanon and who introduced Moloch worship to Israel) set up a colony called Carthage in what is now Libya. Recently, archaeologists digging in the ruins of Carthage uncovered temple sites containing the burnt bones of massive numbers of children. So if the foreign wives of Israelite kings introduced Moloch worship to the Holy Land, is likely that some child sacrifice did in fact occur.

(Rabbis of the Talmud attributed the second exile at the hand of the Romans to the sin of baseless hatred between Jews towards one another.)

garrettc – That both the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah worshipped Ba’al is not in question. The Kingdom of Israel, though, never experienced anything like the Josiahnic reforms (of the late 7th century BCE) although Jehu’s reforms in the Kingdom of Israel were a milder version of those later reforms. (The Kingdom of Israel disappears from history late in the 8th century.) Whether there was actual child sacrifice in either kingdom is very much in question. While it is mentioned that Menasheh — Josiah’s father — had his son pass through the fire (II Kings 21:6) it does not say that his son died. Whether that son was Josiah or some aother son, the text does not say. I would assume he didn’t.

In any event, after the Josiahnic reforms, there is no more mention of Ba’al worship or children passing through fire. Nonetheless, the Kingdom of Judah did fall and many (but not all) went into exile in Babylonia. Some returned at the end of the sixth century BCE (around 535) to establish a second Judean polity. In that polity there is no mention of Ba’al worship or of sending children through a fire. So, whatever errors and omissions there had been in the First Temple period, they did not exist in the Second Temple period. People do learn.

Absolutely spot on and accurate. The Israelites went through great periods of time when they were apostates. King Solomon started this when he married “strange” (foreign) women and to please them allowed their cults to be practiced in Israel.

‘ In the ancient world, up to and including the Roman empire, children were considered the legal property of their parents. They had no rights. They were not legal personalities in themselves. Under the Roman principle of patria potestas, a father could do whatever he wished with his child, including putting him to death. Infanticide was well known in antiquity. (It has even been defended in our time by the Harvard philosopher Peter Singer in the case of severely handicapped children). That, for example is how the story of Oedipus begins, with his father Laius leaving him to die.

It is this principle that underlies the entire practice of child sacrifice, which was widespread throughout the pagan world. The Torah is horrified by child sacrifice, which it sees as the worst of all sins. It therefore seeks to establish, in the case of children, what it establishes in the case of the universe as a whole, the land of Israel, and the people of Israel. We do not own our children. G-d does. We are merely their guardians on G-d’s behalf.

Only the most dramatic event could establish an idea so revolutionary and unprecedented – even unintelligible – in the ancient world. That is what the story of the binding of Isaac is about. Isaac belongs to neither Abraham nor Sarah. Isaac belongs to G-d. All children belong to G-d. Parents do not own their children. The relationship of parent to child is one of guardianship only. G-d does not want Abraham to sacrifice his child. G-d wants him to renounce ownership in his child. That is what the angel means when it calls to Abraham, telling him to stop, “You have not withheld from Me your son, your only son.”

Bob, on the possibility you sincerely are questioning this, there are some who use “G-d” in reverence, believeing it is disrespectful to directly refer to the creator in conversation. I have found this to be more common among Jews, although which sort (Orthodox, etc.) I don’t know.

He’s not. Jews believe in the 10 Commandments – one being “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.” In being respectful they don’t write it out in case it is considered taking His name in vain.

As a Christian i do not like to ever say the word G0d, because I Think it is a strange way to speak of my heavenly father, YHWH is much easier on my heart, other names are Yah, YH, as for Messiah, i could say several words, but the most beautiful are Precious Jesus lead me Home…or Jesu, Yeshua…..I will stay with Jesus….And dear Jewish friends, { I hope } Mr Yakov, respecially sir, I follow your words with a lot of respect for you, and I do agree with you about people that would lay that awful charge to the Elect of YHWH…..There is no proof to that charge, and sir, please do not ever be fooled into believing that Christians killed over a million small Jewish children, 70 years ago…Mr. Yakov we have our apostates, as does the Jewish Race…I am referring to some of the ones in NYC. that hate Israel….There are millions of GENTILES that may have been born with a Christian surname…..No more Christ Like than satan would be…That is where so many Dear Jews make a big mistake, in lumping together all Gentiles….I hope you will remember this, and please do not curse your true friends, and mix them up with Heritics….Shalom, and Yah bless….Jimi Belton

So? The Romans also owned slaves by the thousands. Slaves were used for everything from farming to prostitution. They were even forced to fight each other to the death for entertainment. Now we are using them as role models on how to treat children?

“Take care lest you become entrapped by them after they have been destroyed before you. You should not seek their gods asking, “how did these nations worship their gods; I also will do so.” Do not do so to Hashem your G-d. This is because they did for their gods all sorts of abominations that Hashem despises. Even their sons and daughters they burned in fire to their gods.” (Devarim 12:30-31)

Menachem, you are right about history of Patrias Potestas, about the Isaac and about the Torah not commanding that. However, what garrett and Myth buster say is not that Torah commands infanticide, but that Israel tolerated even when it’s wrong under the Torah principles, and therefore they were sent to exile. Now, that might not be accurate but doesn’t seem to me trolling or anti-semitism.

The two quotes provided demonstrate that child sacrifice was prohibited in The Torah. Jews never practiced this heinous crime and the charge that we did is pure bunk. Some Christian theologians made this charge in order to demonstrate Christian superiority. It is just one more libel with no proof other that the charge being made. Not the first time Jews have been blasphemed and not the last. In fact it was Judaism which established that child sacrifice was an abomination.

The charge is even more disgusting as 1.5 million Jewish children under the age of 5 were murdered by Christians in Europe only seventy years ago. Perhaps rather than make phony charges against Jews those posting here should examine their own theology for the flaws that led to such behavior.

The Nazi movement was not Christian, and in fact they destroyed churches which did not toe the line. Hitler himself was a sort of neo-pagan. Do get your history right. Oh, speaking of history:

16 And they forsook all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made for themselves molten images of two calves; and they made an Asherah, and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal.
17 And they burned their sons and their daughters as offerings, and used divination and sorcery, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger.
18 Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight; none was left but the tribe of Judah only. (2 Kgs. 17:16-18)

That’s nonsense. There’s nothing anti-semitic about pointing out a bad portion of Jewish history. I can look at American history and point out slavery – that doesn’t make me anti-american. The Spanish Inquisition was a horrible thing – that itself doesn’t make me anti-catholic (or anti-Christian, as you seem to be).

Jewish history certainly didn’t end with the Torah. For an example, how about Ezekiel 20:30-31 >

30 “Therefore say to the Israelites: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Will you defile yourselves the way your ancestors did and lust after their vile images? 31 When you offer your gifts—the sacrifice of your children in the fire—you continue to defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. Am I to let you inquire of me, you Israelites? As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I will not let you inquire of me.

Again, none of this is anti-semitic, just pointing out events that actually occurred and showing the the Lord hates it so much that He even turned His face from Israel for it for a time.

Attempting to distract from the point by invoking the Holocaust was distasteful. Please don’t do that again.

Son of Jacob, the fact that many Jews disobeyed the Covenant is explicitly mentioned in every historical book after Joshua, and also by Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Disobedience to the Covenant is also given by Moses as the ONLY reason that the Jews would ever be sent into exile. God also promised to bring the descendents of the exiles back from exile, but He did warn that disobedience would result in many disasters, culminating in large-scale exile after many had died of war and famine. The Prophets record the apostasy, the warnings given to call Israel back from apostasy, the disregarding and persecution of the prophets sent to call them back, the exile and lamentation over the exile, and the regathering from the Babylonian exile as well as the prophecy of and return from the Diaspora.

I call Heaven and Earth to witness to you today. While a great multitude of your ancestors were faithful to the Covenant, greater still were the disobedient. For apostasy, they were exiled, and their apostasy consisted of sacrificing their children to false gods and doing other abominations. I call Moses and Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Ezra, Isaiah and Hosea, Amos and Micah, Zephaniah and Zachariah to testify to you today. Do you call God Himself a liar? Or are you that unfamiliar with Tanach that you genuinely don’t know this? Indeed, your study of Torah seems to be incomplete, because you claim that the Jews were sent into exile despite being innocent, when God Himself promised that only transgression could result in exile.

Judges 11:30-31 “And Jephthah voweth a vow to Jehovah, and saith, ‘If Thou dost at all give the Bene-Ammon into my hand — 31 then it hath been, that which at all cometh out from the doors of my house to meet me in my turning back in peace from the Bene-Ammon — it hath been to Jehovah, or I have offered up for it — a burnt-offering.’ “

II Kings 21:16 “And also, innocent blood hath Manasseh shed very much, till that he hath filled Jerusalem — mouth to mouth; apart from his sin that he hath caused Judah to sin, to do the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah.”

Psalm 106:38 “They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.”

Jeremiah 2: 34-35 “Also in thy skirts hath been found the blood of innocent needy souls, not by digging have I found them, but upon all these. And thou sayest, ‘Because I have been innocent, Surely turned back hath His anger from me?’ Lo, I have been judged with thee, Because of thy saying, ‘I have not sinned.’”

Jeremiah 7: 30-31 “For the sons of Judah Have done the evil thing in Mine eyes, An affirmation of Jehovah, They have set their abominations in the house On which My name is called — to defile it, And have built the high places (altars) that are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, To burn their sons and their daughters with fire, Which I did not command, Nor did it come up on My heart.”

Jeremiah 19:4 “For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent.”

Ezekiel 9:9 “He answered me, ‘The sin of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of injustice. They say, ‘The Lord has forsaken the land; the Lord does not see.’“

There’s more on this subject if one wants to read from Torah. I don’t bother with the Talmud or Midrash, Jeremiah 8:8-9 “How do ye say, We are wise, And the law of Jehovah is with us? Surely, falsely it hath wrought, the false pen of scribes. Ashamed have been the wise, They have been frightened, and are captured, Lo, against a word of Jehovah they kicked, And what wisdom have they?

Of course Torah prohibits child sacrifice. That didn’t stop some rebellious Israelites from doing it, among other violations of Levitical Law. The Word of G-d is a combination of history, philosophy and prophecy, Levitical instructions relevant for that period, advice (Proverbs) mostly suitable for any period. Spoken truth about events, and Truth spoken by G-d through His prophets, especially about the coming Messiah; Jesus the Christ. Anyone claiming the Bible incites violence or bigotry is free to their opinion. The same goes for those who DON’T hold that opinion.

Hitler hated Christians, had many of them put to death, including Dietrich Bonhoffer, and the family of Cory TenBoom. Allied soldiers, most of them Christians, fought in WWII and gave the ultimate sacrifice that eventually benefited, oh, lemme think now, I guess YOU, for one.

“Pure bunk.”?
Using a concordance, noting the many uses in context for “Molech”, any sound mind cannot but be struck by the manifest and declarative inferences which say that, G0D’s people actually did sacrifice to Molech—which consisted of making the child available to the attendant who carried the victim up the 10-14′ of stairs of the idol, an incense burner, the mouth of which was made operable, and into which, the child was dropped onto the coals below; attendent screaming was drowned out by the volume in the use of tambourines, fifes, and drums, . . .

I do not think you an anti-semite, but you are quoting out of context. You skipped many verses there. Please note that it also explicitly states that exile was for not keeping the Sabbatical year (Exodos), and for doing business on the Sabbath (Jerimiah).

God absolutely abhors human sacrifice, but there were many things that caused the exile, and at all times the Jews were a thousand times better than any of their neighbors, from whom these thigns were learned. You can see from some of the worst incidents, for example the Concubine at Givah and Naval the Carmelite, how much higher a standard they held themselves to. It is only because they were (are) God’s people that they were so punished.

They desecrated the Sabbath because they were apostates. If they were willing to desecrate the Temple with idols, why would they hesitate to desecrate the Sabbath? Furthermore, they were only better than the nations around them because there was always a remnant of faithful ones among the Israelites, even at the height of the apostasy.

Progressivism is an evil secular religion. Progressives have a long history of advocating for euthanasia. Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw advocated for killing all non-productive people with a “gentleman’s gas”. Killing newborn babies is just a foot in the door for these execrable people.

BTW: I tried to find a link to the George Bernard Shaw video referring to a “gentleman’s gas” on every internet search engine I have…to no avail. I saw the scratchy black and white video on Glenn Beck’s former Fox telecast.

Do not trust the prevailing internet search engines…certain content appears to have been scrubbed. This is typical Progressive behavior. Consider the political orientation of the developers of the internet search engines?

No. He was serious, with a qualifier. He was a “Fabian Socialist,” and a genuine champion of eugenics. Granted he was a very witty man who also made a handsome living off his wit, but he believed that “inferior” people, at a minimum, should not be allowed to reproduce — which is what eugenics is. The only “unserious” aspect of this little talk of his is that he was satisfied with just sterilizing the inferiors, and would not have had the stomach to have them euthanized in the prime of their lives. Wow, what a humanitarian!

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was once quoted from a letter of hers as writing “We must not let it be known that we intend to exterminate the Negro race.” When put in context, it appears that she may have simply written poorly, and was trying to scotch false rumors. However, if so, that was spectacularly poorly written! She was, after all, involved in an effort to substantially reduce and limit the African-American population through sterilization. What then are we to think of her “misquote?”

I think you’ll find that George Shaw was a worthless scumbag lefty who supported Stalin and the mass murder of anyone who stood in the way of the communists.

He was a total piece of crap is what he was.

Our society blows off the murder of innocent unborn babies, and now in Canada, it blows off the murder of already born babies (as long as the murderer is a member of a privileged class, of course), while we consider it a heinous crime to put a bullet in the heads of scum like George Bernard Shaw or Joanne Veit.

Oughta be the other way around.

Killing a helpless and innocent human being ought to be punsihable by death, while exterminating leftists, who promote and expedite the murder of the innocent, ought to be rewarded by the killer recieving a good citizenship award.

Several years ago I came across a Web site called (IIRC) “Project Nuremberg.” Its purpose, once abortion had been outlawed, was to arrest and prosecute abortionists, along with their political & judicial enablers, for crimes against humanity. Unfortunately searches of that phrase and “Operation Nuremberg” both come up empty on the subject, so apparently the effort has been abandoned. Too bad — this “judge” would have been near the top of the prosecution (and execution?) list.

This right here is the classic example of a slippery slope. As conservatives always insisted it was only a matter of time until pre-birth murder graduated to post-birth murder. How long until infanticide becomes teenagericide, and adulticide? This is disgusting and primitive in every sense of the words. And even more hilarious was the fact that this person has been found guilty twice by actual normal people but some idiot activist judge felt it was time to completely crap all over the idea of juries and just decriminalize murder. Again.

Remember Andrea Yates, the woman who murdered all five of her children in a post-partum rage? She became the instant darling of the feminists. As far as they were concerned, she did nothing wrong — she simply performed five retroactive abortions.

First — show some proof of that. Provide a link to EVEN ONE article that has a feminist saying Andrea Yates did nothing wrong.

Second — it was not post-partum rage. The woman was certifiably bat-shit crazy. Looney. Bonkers. Hearing voices, seeing visions. She’d been in and out of mental institutions for her hallucinations many times because she was considered an exteme danger to herself. That’s not post-partum, that’s just plain and serious mental illness. The post-partum aspect was that with each additional child she had, her mental illness got appreciably worse.

Nobody was excusing Andrea Yates (and, clearly, that is why she is no longer a free woman). Most of the people whom you have mistaken as supporting her were people who merely pointed out the obvious — i.e., that it was a tragedy that could have been prevented. How? Well, let me ask you this: If you were married to a woman who was bat-shit crazy, and who was getting even crazier with each additional child she had, would you consider it a brilliant idea to keep having kids with her? Or would you have enough sense to eventually say, whoaaaa, time for a condom? And if your wife was so out of it that she was hearing voices, seeing hallucinations, in and out of mental institutions, and considered potentially dangerous, would you choose to not only leave her alone with your five kids, but decide that she should also home school them so that there was never a time when this bat-shit crazy woman was away from five screaming little kids who were exacerbating her already severe mental illness?

Andrea Yates made a decision to kill her children. She was extremely mentally ill. However, it was Andrea Yates’ husband who chose to leave his five children with an extremely mentally ill woman. And he was NOT mentally ill.

This end was predicted precisely by the Catholic Church when the pope issued an encyclical called humane vitae -the essence of the problem was removing the sexual function of marriage from the procreative function of marriage.

Recreational sex for its own end always reduces mankind to mere animalistic nature and then we wonder why we behave as we do toward each other. Life then becomes an impediment, instead of joy and therefore, life, as in all totalitarian regimes, becomes disposable. And for those choosing now to do the disposing, it also mens that your life is disposable -legally, for man can justify any evil (temporarily) but never its consequences.

Wicked Judge Veit should be removed from the bench immediately and prosecuted for the crime of failing to fulfill her duty as a judge. The judge regards the murder of an innocent child as completely acceptable and allowed the murderer to walk free.

Judge Veit follows in the footsteps of many American progressives who have declared war on both the unborn and the newborn. I personally thought nothing could appall me more than Michelle Obama whispering to President Obanma during the 9/11 memorial. “All this for a flag”. I was wrong.

That judge sounds like one of the liberal Weimar judges who pioneered the infernal legal concept of lebensunwertes Leben, a life unworthy of living. Don’t they teach lawyers about the Nuremberg protocols anymore? She wears sensible shoes, drives a nice car, maintains her personal cleanliness and politely invites the devil back into the courtrooms of Canada, under color of compassion, grieving.

Or, as the car salesman says, as he pockets your money, “It’s all perfectly legal.”

Not all satire is “light.” If you understood the context in which Swift wrote “A Modest Proposal,” you’d know he was pretty damned serious. He was appalled at his contemporaries’ attempts at social engineering, which, in his view, turned humans into commodities easily disposed of–gee, just like unborn children today are viewed by progressives.

how and when did Canada seek so low in its morals and culture? do the people just ignore the degradation that their culture is bringing to them? soon its cities and suburbs and other populated areas will revert to the savage state of man and all hell will break lose. but dont worry at least you have your socialized medicine , a thing that amoral American liberals love about you.

How about Canada’s very own Marxist Obama, the Liberal—our Democratic Party—Pierre Elliot Trudeau, and his 1982 Charter of Rights (sic) and Freedoms (sic)?

Both Trudeau’s progressive regime and his Charter disenfranchised every law-abiding, “normal” Canadian in favour of granting rights to the members of favoured, fringe groups: as Thomas Axworthy, President of the Liberal Party—now decimated!!—recently said, the Charter’s purpose was “to transfer power from the more powerful to the less powerful”. (Shades of Obama, right?) And that’s exactly what’s been happening in Canada for the past three decades. (“True North, strong and free”? Not for some time . . .)

The Charter, hailed by all of Canada’s lefty elites, has been used as a political and social battering ram—end running democracy, by using courts to “legislate” what no elected Parliament would dare to, and forcing Canadians to accept as lawful all kinds of aberrations we don’t support.

Even though, enshrined in the Charter, itself, is the Notwithstanding Clause, which allows the federal and provincial governments to override court Charter rulings, our spineless politicians hide behind the courts’ skirts and claim they can’t do anything about unpopular rulings. And that includes our CINO—Conservative In Name Only—sissies!

The present Conservative Government, with Stephen Harper as our PM, is a HUGE improvement over the hegemony of the Liberal party, but many of us would like him to use his recently won majority government (finally!) to make some significant changes. There seems to be some foot dragging here—the “Ottawa”, like the Washington, syndrome perhaps?

Sorry but we almost got it here through our messiah in chief. He tried -Satan knows , he tried!

I remind everyne that our messianic president called for infanticide as a senator in Illinois. Any baby that was fully alive after an abortion attempt, he argued, needed to be starved to death (and hydration withheld, if the “mother” (get this contrived Harvard law, legal buzzword for future Supreme Courts to play with) if the “mother” “intended” to abort the baby.

He never did say how long the “intent” “license to kill” lasted -Could a mother kill her child at say…age 16? (I know a lot that would like to.) Sorry but they’ll have to wait until the Obama types open the door a bit further to what Hitler was excoriated for -calling some types of humans -not quite human.

This is nauseating. I’m going to sign off and hug my sleeping 7 year old boy who has severe autism, a brain tumor, and needs to sleep with a bipap machine. I guess by some standards, he wouldn’t be considered fit to live.

As it is, I am considering leaving the country when he gets older.
At least thank goodness we don’t live in Canada.

Abortion is a perfect example of what an out-of-sight-out-of-mind philisophy can lead to. It’s all euphemisms and visuals we’re not allowed to see.

But what’s the difference if I shoot a man who’s standing in front of me in a well-lit room or if I tell him ot go stand in a dark room and I’ll stand outside and shoot him through the door? It’s still murder. …Well, I guess there is a difference: If I make a habit of shooting people I can’t see, then it just gets easier and easier to do it.

The only difference is that the baby in the womb is using the mother’s body, whereas the man in the dark is not. However, this difference is not sufficient to give her the right to kill the baby. This is because a mother has a duty to take care of her baby, and the baby has no duty to refrain from using her body. Therefore, the baby has a right to use her body.

What if the guy I’m shooting in the dark room is living off of me in some parasitic fashion?

If lefties can define babies as being “parasitic,” perhaps I’d like to define some other folk in that fashion.

You’ve made an interesting notion pop up in my noggin. Why is it, in lefty world, a pregnant woman has no moral obligation to provide life to the baby living inside her (which, unless it was rape, she brought into existence!) but I somehow have a moral obligation to provide for the poor and downtrodden – not just of this country, but other countries as well?

There is a huge difference between having a moral obligation to help those less well off than you (I refuse to use the term “less fortunate”) and the government stealing your money and efforts and giving it away to those it chooses.

There is a morally relevant difference between a stranger who has attached himself to you parasitically and your baby in your womb. This is supported by the fact that your two-year-old’s claim that you should feed him dinner has a morally different status from the claim of some guy across town that you should give him dinner. You have a duty to feed your two-year-old, but not the guy across town. The placement of your child in the womb makes no difference. If the guy across town attaches himself to you, that does not have any effect on the status of his claim to your support, either.

Thank you, Rob Taylor, for putting this story out there. And great comments from so many, except poor Menachem Ben Yakov, who overreacted and showed his anti-Christian side. JDGadsden and Ceteris Paribus answered him superbly. No one was attacking Judaism, the older cousins of Christians. The Jews were the chosen people of God and Jesus was born of a Jewish maiden, and all his Apostles were Jews. How can any sane Christian be anti-Jewish? Let’s hold together and respect each other, because we have a lot of common battles to fight against the godless progressive secularists who are destroying the values we all hold dear. And the agnostics who share these values are welcome to join the fight.

There is one thing that the writers of the Word of G0d. has done and that is to write as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, to do….As Moses, wrote his own failings, and did so many others, Mr. Yakov is like us all, we don`t want to face the bad in our past…The Word of G0d, hides nothing, ….I really enjoy reading from such great writers, such as are all you commentateries….jimi

Yes, that Canada is a civilized nation—much more so than the USA—is an arrogant, lefty myth: one of the standards of the progressives here—who have done everything possible to run this country into the ground—is their unbecoming and mean-spirited anti-Americanism. (Obama’s thrown a bit of a spanner into that!)

Most Canadian non-progressives say, “God bless America”—and get rid of Obama, please!

Unfortunately, the MSM here in Canada is as bad (or worse) than the US MSM so you’ll almost never hear a news story that is antagonistic to leftist views. Even if thousands of people protested Judge Veit’s views, you’d never know about it from them.

The biggest ray of sunshine is the fact that most online media in Canada, including the Edmonton Sun story cited in this article, allow comments from readers and if you look at those, you’ll see that most Canadians are as appalled by Veit’s sentiments as PJM readers are.

The biggest dark cloud is the one noted by the American who was living in Ontario: most Canadians are too complacent to act against such things. I agree that mass demonstrations against Veit should be staged but, for most of us, Wetaskiwin is a very long way away so it’s not easy to protest. An example should make this clear. If an American judge in Denver made questionable ruling, how many people from New York, Chicago, Seattle, Miami or Los Angeles would show up for the protest? Rather few, I expect. Wetaskiwin is a comparable distance for most Canadians. It is not a long drive from Edmonton and Edmonton is a major city with an airport that has connections around the country but not that many people will book a flight to Edmonton at considerable expense simply to attend a protest that may only run an hour.

I think some of the commenters here have it about right: there will be chatter about this for a few days, there will be an outraged feature about it on the new Sun News Network and a few other pages, and then it will cease to be talked about because something else has bumped it from the headlines.

I profoundly disagree with those who assert or suspect that we have all “drunk the koolaid” and actually agree with this idiotic judge in seeing the mother as the primary victim in this case.

I’d like to think this country is slowly starting to come to its senses and realizing the foolishness implicit in adopting the various socialist policies that have overwhelmed us since Trudea was Prime Minister. Unfortunately, the Old Guard socialists utterly dominate our media too and we have nothing like a Tea Party yet to help lead a resistance against the status quo.

But rest assured, most of us are sensible enough to be utterly contemptuous of the judge’s ruling.

In your article you say “Infanticide proponent Peter Singer, a top ethicist at Princeton University, has said, for example, “there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.” ”

He is absolutely right that there is no difference between the two. It is just as heinous to kill an unborn baby as it is to kill one who has been born. It is still murder of an innocent human being. Proper response is to kill the perpetrator. Why is it that liberals (American definition) think it’s ok to kill an innocent baby but wrong to kill a murderer or rapist? Is it just cognitive dissonance or are they truly evil? I’m beginning to think it’s the latter.

The mentality of Judge Veit and of the baby-killer is inexplicable to my way of thinking. Sadly, I suspect that modern society has a surfeit of their kind. They view themselves as modern, liberated women. We need new laws for modern, liberated women which demand sterilization and life or death sentences for infanticide. And if they can convince courts that they were not responsible because of some type of insanity, then lock them up for life in an insane asylum. Canada needs to hang its head in shame for a whole generation and America needs to be on guard for its own hemorrhaging-heart liberals who would follow in Canada’s footsteps.

@27. Andy H: “The mentality of Judge Veit and of the baby-killer is inexplicable to my way of thinking.”

It’s nothing to do with Judge Veit’s mentality. This is the criminal Code of Canada speaking. The case doesn’t indicate a runaway trend of mass baby-killing. It’s a Christian culture’s attempt to deal with a small problem of mothers who lose it and snuff their newborns. They’re trying to save a young woman’s life after she goes bonkers in childbirth and strangles her baby. It happens. It’s even in the Bible along with hundreds of other uncool things to do to one’s baby child. There’s nothing to be gained by jailing one or two mad moms each year for life. Nothing. With God’s grace, they may eventually pull themselves together, stop having sex with creeps, and become a part of civilized society.

No it won’t. The amount we’d save from not having to support that child pales in comparison to the cost the resulting curse will bring us. Already we bear a tremendous curse from nearly sixty million innocent lives snuffed out with the approval of our law. Adding to that total will only make things worse. Want to fix this economy? Let’s round up all the abortionists and slit their throats, letting the Mississippi River run red with the blood of abortionists and their attendants, to make satisfaction for the innocent blood they have shed.

The one sliver of decency that the woman had was her shame at having her mother find out that she had gotten pregnant out of wedlock. This was a case in which one sin led to another (and much greater) sin, but many people these days aren’t even ashamed to have everyone know they played the harlot.

Decency? There was no decency in this young woman — the truly decent thing to do would have been to own up to her slip up (having out of wedlock sex) and then acted responsibily towards its outcome (the baby). Instead she tried to find away around any responsibility whatsoever, including attempts at framing innocent people.

“In Canada a woman commits infanticide if she murders a newborn before she has “recovered” from the effects of child birth, a process billions of women were able to handle for millions of years without losing their sanity.”

While I whole heartedly agree with the greater points of this article, I feel this specific comment is dismissive and, frankly, wrong. Historically, infanticide at the hands of mothers has always existed. The greatest difference is that today we have better records and accounting of this practice. Yes, most women get through pregnancy, childbirth and lactation without issue, but there are a non-trivial number for whom their emotional and thought processes are significantly affected by the radical chemical changes associated with these processes. While even among women who do experience issues, most manage to navigate these difficult waters without physically harming themselves or their children, there are some for whom this road ends in a death.

I want to be clearly understood: this does not excuse the killing of a child. But I do see a distinct difference between a mother who kills her child after reaching a rational conclusion that her life would be better without it than a mother who without premeditation kills her child while under the influence of unbalanced chemicals in the brain. Without seeing all the evidence, my impression is that this particulat case falls more in the former than the latter, but, by understanding better the mechanism of the latter, we may better be able to advocate for measures that may reduce the frequency of occurence.

FWIW, I would also imagine the same dynamics are evidenced with regard to abortion. Some women sit down, do the calculation and conclude their best logical choice is to eliminate the embryo/fetus. I have no doubt, though, that many others are driven to this “choice” by the same heightened emotions, unbalanced chemicals and unsound reasoning that might push some mothers to kill their babies. For this latter group, I would hazard that the guilt and pain they visit upon themselves may be a greater punishment than any the courts might hand down.

There is a Canadian musical group that had a big hit with one of their singles, about the changes in the generations. That their great-grandparents had large families and the current generation is “lucky” that their mother did not abort them, like they abort their children/accidents. (Mes Aïeux – Dégénération).

Members of the Canadian side of our family that are of my children’s generation are starting to rebel. The atheism and the socialism that is modern Canada did not occur within one generation, and it will not be cast-off in one generation. However, the seeds are planted and they are growing like the grasses on the prairies.

The judge is not grievously wrong,as regards to the law, it seems. There is a 5-yr maximum penalty. That’s what’s wrong. (Her sophistry is wrong, too, of course.) The whole thing is insane.

Canada refuses to extradite an alleged murderer for trial in the USA, if we say we will seek the death penalty. If we might convict him, if he loses appeal after appeal, if he is denied any clemency, after 10+ years, we might kill him, they will not extradite, because they value life so highly. However, you get a slap on the wrist for killing a child. The same folks natter at us, because we try some children as adults and execute them. No consistency, whatsoever. Typical liberal nonsense.

Is a child worth less than an adult? Does he have less or more years ahead of him? Well, he is worth less, if you consider that he requires an enormous investment of a quarter million dollars to raise him up to be a taxpayer. The adult is a taxpayer now, and that is what matters. Well, no, because lots of adults do not pay taxes, because they live on the dole. Well, they pay sales taxes… with tax money. ‘Round and ’round. It never makes any sense.

What is the real problem? Intellectualizing. Only intellectuals can be so stupid as to entertain certain notions. Certain notions should not be entertained. They are just wrong. Intellectualizing ignores moral absolutes. It offers moral equivalence, or replaces true moral absolutes, with some new, disgusting moral absolutes.

What is the solution? Shut them down when they open their big mouths. “Just for the sake of argument….” How about a punch in the mouth for my side of the argument? “Shut up.”, I explained… is perfectly valid in some cases. Shut up. Don’t go there. Don’t even start. You stupid intellectual. And no, that is not an oxymoron, you moron.

Another way in which Canada is quite different from Texas. In Texas, murder of a child justifies a charge of capital murder. And in Texas, a capital murder conviction means more than in most other places.

“…….Leftism sanctions and encourages criminality by changing societal views of criminals and victims. We see this clearly when Veit speaks of the onerousness of childbirth, as if the child is a parasite erupting from the womb of some innocent victim in a scene slightly less gory than the chest bursting dinner scene in Alien. Meanwhile, Veit presumes to speak for all Canadians when she claims they grieve for Effert, the woman who strangled a baby and then tried to frame an innocent man for the murder…….”

Christianity evolved in a communal setting, which described North America until the middle of last century. That means life, hope and ambitions are to be found in other people. In families, congregations and communities. Now that INDIVIDUALISM is the flavour of modern culture, people are alienated, disassociated and in conflict with each other. Abortion is a symptom and not a cause of this, just that the situation and motivations that drive people to kill babies seem perfectly sane and reasonable to the inviolable and unimpeachable self. Leftism has some features and prescriptions that appeal to the disaffected and antisocial self, but is not an essential condition……

We have given up community and this is some of the stuff that happens……

Let’s see, a young woman evidently hid her pregnancy from her mother for 9 months and delivered a baby boy. After the delivery, she still didn’t want her mother to know, so she murdered her newborn and disposed of the body in order to continue the deception with her mother. After the murdered baby was discovered, she lied about it being hers then later owned up but said she’d given the baby to her boyfriend, hoping to shift the blame.

I would like to know why she was so afraid of her mother. That seems to be the motivating factor here. What were the consequences she so feared that she did such horrible thing in an effort to escape those consequences? Evidently her mother was quite good and putting the “fear of Mom” in her. Perhaps that is why the judge changed the sentencing. Our author evidently thinks that information is not relevant here.

Interesting Freudian slip you have there: “Evidently her mother was quite good and putting the ‘fear of Mom’ in her.” Not “…quite good AT putting…” but “quite good AND putting…” People being good frightens you, doesn’t it? It’s the good people who cause all the problems in the world, isn’t it?

If you don’t like being psychoanalyzed then don’t come here with some absurd attempt at a mitigating factor that you think makes the murder of an infant palatable. Civilized people have lines they don’t cross, murdering infants being a pretty indelible boundary.

Thank goodness you’re here to give her yet another reason to shift blame! She had just run out of excuses and lies.

Did you ever consider that I was showing how absurd it is to delve into what a “fear of mom” issue means? Why is Randy even bringing it up? It could never in any circumstance mitigate the strangling of one’s own child. Someone gives birth, strangles the child with underpants, says it’s not hers, blames a boyfriend… but, golly, did we consider fear of mom? Sheesh!

Lol i have had fun reading all the infighting between the judeo-christians. Your all the same religion lol. I also love how apparently the words of 1 judge speaks for all liberals to you all. All that is good ole fasion conservitive propaganda baseless in all ways. I mean i might as well say all conservitives r hipocrite adulterors because herman cain is. Does that sound logical. Because that is exactaly whats being said about liberals. You xia conservitives ARE all the same you lump everyone who disagrees with u together and regsrdless of the subject start throwing the term child killer at the crowed. thats intelligent trolls

Thanks for giving your ideas with this blog. Also, a myth regarding the banks intentions if talking about foreclosed is that the financial institution will not getreceive my installments. There is a certain amount of time in which the bank requires payments here and there. If you are very deep in the hole, they’re going to commonly desire that you pay the payment entirely. However, that doesn’t mean that they will not take any sort of installments at all. Should you and the bank can have the ability to work anything out, this foreclosure practice may end. However, should you continue to neglect payments underneath the new approach, the foreclosed process can pick up from where it left off.

Canadian laws make me sick. 2 years max for killing baby? What is wrong with you people? You have lost your way. America may be violent, but at least we have justice. I will never buy anything made in Canada again, you people are whacked out.